Plaintiphobia in state courts? An empirical study of state court trials on appeal

Journal of Legal Studies

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 121-155

  Eisenberg, Theodore ^a   Heise, Michael ^b,c  

^a Department of Law ^*

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^c MIT Sloan School of Management   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62749185516     PISSN: 00472530     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/529150     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Barclay, Scott. 1999. An Appealing Act: Why Parties Appeal in Civil Cases. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
2. Briggs, Derek C. 2004. Causal Inference and the Heckman Model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29:397-420.
3. Clermont, Kevin M., and Theodore Eisenberg. 1992. Trial by Jury or Judge: Transcending Empiricism. Cornell Law Review 77:1124-74.
4. -. 2001. Appeal from Jury or Judge Trial: Defendants' Advantage. American Law and Economic Review 3:125-64.
5. -. 2002a. Litigation Realities. Cornell Law Review 88:119-53.
6. -. 2002b. Plaintiphobia in the Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ from Negotiable Instruments. University of Illinois Law Review 2002: 947-77.
7. Clermont, Kevin M., Theodore Eisenberg, and Stewart J. Schwab. 2003. How Employment-Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare in Federal Courts of Appeals. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 7:547-67.
8. Clermont, Kevin M., and Stewart J. Schwab. 2002. How Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare in Federal Court. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1:429-58.
9. Dalton, Harlon L. 1985. Taking the Right to Appeal (More or Less) Seriously. Yale Law Journal 95:62-107.
10. Eisenberg, Theodore. 1989. Litigation Models and Trial Outcomes in Civil Rights and Prisoner Cases. Georgetown Law Journal 77:1567-1602.
11. -. 2004. Appeal Rates and Outcomes in Tried and Nontried Cases: Further Exploration of Anti-plaintiff Appellate Outcomes. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1:659-88.
12. Eisenberg, Theodore, and Henry Farber. 2003. The Government as Litigant: Further Tests of the Case Selection Model. American Law and Economic Review 5:94-133.
13. Eisenberg, Theodore, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, and David Rottman. 1996. Litigation Outcomes in State and Federal Courts: A Statistical Portrait. Seattle Law Review 19:433-53.
14. Eisenberg, Theodore, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, and Martin T. Wells. 1997. The Predictability of Punitive Damages. Journal of Legal Studies 26:623-60.
15. Eisenberg, Theodore, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Waters, G. Thomas Munsterman, Stewart J. Schwab, and Martin T. Wells. 2005. Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisel's American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 2: 171-206.
16. Eisenberg, Theodore, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Michael Heise, Neil LaFountain, G. Thomas Munsterman, Brian Ostrom, and Martin T. Wells. 2006. Juries, Judges, and Punitive Damages: Empirical Analyses Using the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts 1992, 1996, and 2001 Data. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3:263-95.
17. Galanter, Marc. 1974. Why the "Haves" Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change. Law and Society Review 9:95-160.
18. -. 2004. The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1: 459-570.
19. -. 2006. A World without Trials? Journal of Dispute Resolution 2006: 7-34.
20. Gelman, Andrew, and Jennifer Hill. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Gross, Samuel R., and Kent D. Syverud. 1991. Getting to No: A Study of Settlement Negotiations and the Selection of Cases for Trial. Michigan Law Review 90:319-93.
22. Haydock, Roger, and John Sonsteng. 1990. Trial: Theories, Tactics, Techniques. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing.
23. Heise, Michael. 2000. Justice Delayed?: An Empirical Analysis of Civil Case Disposition Time. Case Western Reserve Law Review 50:813-49.
24. Hyman, David A., Bernard S. Black, Kathryn Zeiler, Charles Silver, and William M. Sage. 2007. Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award? Post-verdict Haircuts in Texas Medical Malpractice Cases, 1988-2003. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4:3-68.
25. Kalven, Harry, and Hans Zeisel. 1966. The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
26. Kessler, Daniel, Thomas Meites, and Geoffrey Miller. 1996. Explaining Deviations from the Fifty-Percent Rule: A Multimodal Approach to the Selection of Cases for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 25:233-59.
27. Lempert, Richard. 1998. Why Do Juries Get a Bum Rap? Reflections on the Work of Valerie Hans. DePaul Law Review 48:453-62.
28. LoPucki, Lynn M., and Walter O. Weyrauch. 2000. A Theory of Legal Strategy. Duke Law Journal 49:1405-86.
29. McNally, James N. 2000. Lessons Learned in the Court of Appeals Settlement Program. Michigan Bar Journal 79:488-93.
30. Merritt, Deborah J., and Kathryn A. Barry. 1999. Is the Tort System in Crisis? New Empirical Evidence. Ohio State Law Journal 60:315-98.
31. Moller, Erik K., Nicholas M. Pace, and Stephen J. Carroll. 1999. Punitive Damages in Financial Injury Jury Verdicts. Journal of Legal Studies 28:283-339.
32. Posner, Richard A. 1985. The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
33. -. 1998. Economic Analysis of Law. 5th ed. New York: Aspen.
34. Priest, George L., and Benjamin Klein. 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13:1-55.
35. Revesz, Richard L. 2000. Litigation and Settlement in the Federal Appellate Courts: Impact of Panel Selection Procedures on Ideologically Divided Courts. Journal of Legal Studies 29:685-710.
36. Robertson, James L. 1999. Reality on Appeal. Pp. 142-49 in The Litigation Manual: Special Problems and Appeals, edited by John G. Koeltl and John Kiernan. 3d ed. Chicago: American Bar Association.
37. Saks, Michael J. 1998. Public Opinion about the Civil Jury: Can Reality Be Found in Illusions? DéPaul Law Review 48:221-43.
38. Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Shavell, Steven. 1996. Any Frequency of Plaintiff Victory at Trial Is Possible. Journal of Legal Studies 25:493-501.
40. Siegelman, Peter, and John J. Donohue III. 1990. Studying the Iceberg from Its Tip: A Comparison of Published and Unpublished Employment Discrimination Cases. Law and Society Review 24:1133-66.
41. Somerville, George A. 1992. Standards of Appellate Review. Pp. 16-25 in Appellate Practice Manual, edited by Pricilla A. Schwab. Chicago: American Bar Association.
42. Spencer, Bruce D. 2007. Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4:305-29.
43. Sullivan, Teresa A., Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Lawrence Westbrook. 1989. As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Tigar, Michael. 1993. Federal Appeals: Jurisdiction and Practice. 2ded. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Shepard's/McGraw-Hill.
45. Trubek, David M., Austin Sarat, William L. F. Felstiner, Herbert M. Kritzer, and Joel B. Grossman. 1983. The Costs of Ordinary Litigation. UCLA Law Review 31:72-123.
46. U.S. Department of Justice. 2004. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2001: Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
47. -. 2005. Appeals from General Civil Trials in 46 Large Counties, 2001-2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
48. -. 2006. Supplemental Survey of Civil Appeals, 2001 (computer file). Conducted by National Center for State Courts. ICPSR No. 4539. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
49. Vidmar, Neil. 1998. The Performance of the American Civil Jury: An Empirical Perspective. Arizona Law Review 40:849-99.